Slashdot Mirror
Censorship Struggle Underway In Iceland
jon jonson writes "Information from the collapsed Icelandic bank Kaupthing has been leaked to WikiLeaks, revealing billions in insider loans, and the bank has been working day and night to censor the information contained in the document. Last night at 6:55pm GMT, they served an injunction against the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service, five minutes before the 7pm news was due to be aired. The TV station just displayed the WikiLeaks URL instead. They've also injuncted Iceland's national radio, banning all discussion about the contents of the document, and they are actively trying to censor the rest of the Icelandic media along with WikiLeaks."
Kaupthing had fallen over and if they hadn't tried to stop people finding out, it wouldn't have been posted to Slashdot and I and many others would never have known. We need a name for when attempted censorship leads to wider distribution of the information. The Kaupthing effect, perhaps?
Good thing WikiLeaks is still alive and kicking
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
revealing billions in insider loans,
Like most wikileaks documents, I've found it nearly impossible to verify the high level claim (insider trading) off the information provided. They always seem to drop the ball on writing down their analysis...or letting others (otherwise, it's NOT a wiki!). I expect several pages of summary and analysis, but instead, just broad claims with little or no references or supporting facts.
For those of us who aren't experts in Icelandic corporations and banking, here's a sample, after some googling- one of the listed parties is a Robert Tchenguiz.
If the claims in that blog posting are true, 500BN of Iceland's citizens' money flew out the door in "loans" to tax haven countries.
Please help metamoderate.
The bank is owned by the goverment.
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
When the government starts censoring things, I find that it is usually because of national security issues more than anything else.
I've seen quite the opposite. Censoring is much more likely to be about covering your ass than about national security.
You do know that national security is a synonym for political embarrassment, don't you?
The police that are mandating the censorship are also owned by the government.
And to complete the farce, the newsroom being censored is ALSO OWNED BY THE STUPID GOVERNMENT.
Jag pratar lite svenska.
There's no such word as injuncted. "to issue an injunction" is to "enjoin", so the form needed here is enjoined.
But wait, there's more! According to my favorite Icelandic blogger, the commissioner who issued the injunction has a son who is or was a spokesman for the bank, and another who was an executive and the recipient of one of the no-payments loans.
Iceland is a close-knit society. The anger there is fueled by a sense of betrayal that people from big heterogeneous countries can't fully appreciate.
Per the cease and desist order, it appears that the lawyers on behalf of Kraupthing are doing their job.
The laws themselves appear to be there to protect the client's confidential information. Paraphrasing (IANAL, IANAL, IANAL!) they are:
58. Banks are not suppose to disclose their customer's financial information.
59. Exception #1 - if there is a risk to a parent company
60. Exception #2 - if the customer(s) say it is okay to disclose the information.
So basically the bank and the bank lawyers are doing the job they are legally obligated to do on behalf of their customers.
If it was a bunch of lies, then the bank officials would have pointed that out.
And when a guy stands in the driveway of a GM plant screaming that alien technology is being used to make Corvettes, does that mean it's true because GM refuses to answer questions from him or reporters and then kicks him off the property? Of course not.
First off, I didn't say the claims were lies. I said there was no explanation or analysis, and thus no way for me to verify them. There isn't even any explanation as to why they believe the documents are authentic. I was lamenting, in general, at the lack of explanations and analysis of documents posted to Wikileaks as a whole. Putting down a list of companies and calling it "analysis" isn't.
Second, it does not logically follow that if someone doesn't deny something, it is true- in part or whole. 5th Amendment, anyone? Same goes for trying to get something out of the public spotlight. Maybe the whole reason they want to suppress it is because it IS bullshit, and letting it spread would make it difficult or impossible to find impartial jurors in a criminal or civil trial- or harm existing companies that have done legitimate business with them.
Lastly, very often a public relations effort involves not even acknowledging claims, regardless of their merit. There are a variety of reasons why. For example: sometimes the claims are bullshit but you don't feel you can convince the public otherwise. Sometimes you want to keep a low profile and hope people will get bored and move on to shinier news items. Sometimes you cannot say anything because of pending legal action- either because it would be risky to comment, or you've been told not to.
But hey, feel free to play out the simple Hollywood conspiracy movie plot. The world is rarely that simple.
Please help metamoderate.
From any practical standpoint, you're quite wrong. I just spent a couple of hours going through the massive FOIA disclosure of the Air Force's internal emails dealing with the aftermath of the Air Force One flyby of the Statue of Liberty back in April. Much of the 553-page document is concerned with detailed observations of bloggers' reactions, even to the point of discussing the rate of change in "tweets per minute" criticizing the White House and USAF.
The US government, at least, takes amateur online journalism very seriously. It's safe to say other governments do as well.
That makes them a "proper source."